low_grade wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:02 pmBut you gotta give me credit for seeing the potential for a 4 year win!
Yeah, thanks, I was less sure. Second time helps a lot. I forgot to mention that economy improved to boom within the play so conditions were pretty favorable. But a lot of the strategy is compromise, there will always be slightly different conditions to adapt to and in hindsight I will want to do something differently.
The 3rd AI slowed you down, too! But cool that you got it without any shares, I never think to try that.
If you meant merging the AI at the start of the 2nd year? This was actually quite important because he wasn't very profitable so I got him at close to book value. Actually, his assets (two Deltics, track stations) were useable. But, main draw was that I was also getting $4.5M worth of access rights for free! Without this it wouldn't have been as easy to make the call to go to London for the connection bonus. Also, his tracks were closer to Jersey so that was less cost to get there. As far as trying to merge AI without any personal share ownership, there is no guarantee (probably actually depends on some of the share price numbers, such as weighted return?). Seems to work more often than not when first year profits are fairly high (no exact definition, but $1.5M+ should do) and his low.
Then again, there's rarely the opportunity to display such tycooning prowess in the first year, the potential of this map is off the charts. I'll have to keep that it mind, it never hurts to ask, right?
Sure, I'm happy for recommendations. If I trawl through the archive many of the goals seem tame and uninteresting, but this is a good lesson that the potential can actually be very interesting.
You haven't commented on the terrain...
Well the short of it is that I didn't find it too bad. I have been testing the effect of longer trains thanks to the new double cars on limited track scenarios (Building to Buffalo, SCBC, and default Italy). So maybe I enjoyed the freedom a bit more on how I could deviate to avoid stuff (I use "Auto-Grid..." and "Auto Hide Trees..." during track lay). I would agree that there are some terrain features here which need creativity. Biggest peeve would have been Cardiff: please give us room to get in from the east without threading the buildings. The building placements are buckling the terrain up making it hard to get through. I just bridged it. Other thing that bugged me was the awkward placements of Le Havre, Nantes, La Rochelle and perhaps Limognes, with centers either in rivers or inlets.
In terms of grades I was being a bit too aggressive (short term) to go for realism. Had a sprinkling of stray 6s around (mainly on spurs, some of which I built very quickly near the end and were never used). Also my bridge south to Portsmouth had a massive kick up from the wooden bridge (wouldn't have had it with suspension but I was being cheap). Had a 15-12-7-7-7-6-5. Had two 9s and a 7 climbing up to Bangor. Then the little kink shown on the left. Could have bridged it but was going for savings.
.
.
Note: Your comment about chains and leapers caused me to think quite a bit about what I currently do for routing. TBH I probably thought too much.
My explanation of how I came to the conclusion got quite wordy. They say if you're sure it doesn't mean much to you. I am not sure, but it's how I think at the moment.
With this game the basics for freight profits are simple: make money off price differentials. But there's more layers. For example: distribution pattern, timing, auto consist, and long- vs. short term focus. Your job is to find the right compromise amongst these and other factors (balance with industry profits, right mix of expansion vs. goal driven actions).
Rails are just the physical connection between points. The layout should hopefully be efficient for as many of the trains using the line as needed (compromise, compromise). What matters for consumer cargoes is the routing/distribution pattern. This will determine the actual interaction of price between points (cities).
When cargo is very plentiful (stacks), and there's a good differential (no definite limit here, depends on loco costs, but $30+ should be solid) it's probably worthwhile to go for the short term, even buying extra engines so that as much is picked up with the same approximate differential strength (will probably begin to weaken as soon as cargo starts being picked up). Super plentiful cargo is probably a sign of oversupply and/or poor economic design by the map maker (on this map it was likely a mistake).
In normal density, short term is trickier to do. With medium densities stacking works (haul as much as possible simultaneously to one location; wait for demand there to be overwhelmed; then haul everything on to the next organized location). The lower the density, the more long term I think. Also realize that as cargo density decreases ROI is going down so at some point there will be crossover with industrial ROI. Don't forget to factor in Express revenue.
When going for the long term, I try to design routes in such a way to preserve price differential strength. There are a lot of factors to weigh. One of the most obvious being that the ideal for maximum revenue as distribution for consumer cargoes must be balanced with the supply considerations of resources.
When thinking long term, the key word is reliable. Isolated locations (geography, edge of map, on a peninsula, away from rivers and ports) wont be good for demand. Best demand area will often be the center of a flat landmass. Rivers and sea side with a port are regulated zones where demand strength is good but stabilized with the consequence that re-haul revenues will be lower. On this map Angers is pretty good for demand. Where I am going with this is that for rail profits it's better to have production in isolated locations, then distribute from there towards better demand locations.
If studying the price map is necessary to get a good grip on industries, IMO it's even more important to get a good grip on where you can make reliable rail profits.
Current rationale on routing (subject to change!)
Majority of cases I think that A-B-C-B service is best for the long term. From a distribution standpoint (cargoes that are consumed by houses don't have a definite journey end-point) there is little reason to skip a city when your routes run from isolated areas towards best strength demand area. If the price at B is weak enough that transfer from A-B stops temporarily, then any distribution from B-C should make better money than if you had the train run A-C in the meantime (running that connection will actually delay the process as the price at A will rise further thanks to transfer from C). After this transfer, price will be rising again in B, so A-B will resume. The indication I would see for a skip is if the transfer stops long enough that cargo starts to drift out of station catchment. I would call these "bottle-necks." An example would be a station with lower than usual demand if you are forced to place your station of center by terrain/river or the like.
Some people in the past have assigned shapes to networks. What I am describing is probably most like hub-and-spoke. However, I believe actual shape is irrelevant; rather referring to the routing principle. Reason I bring it up is for the illustration that we don't want a web: don't link the spokes. Also, we aren't talking about a specific city being the hub, rather an area. If demand should eventually be overwhelmed in the demand area, distribution down the other spokes will begin.
I have the opinion that it's theoretically better to have fewer locations at higher output. Quite a few maps have neighboring cities producing the same cargo types. This is something a bit experimental in my thinking at the moment, but lately I've been linking those two together (as long as they aren't the same distance from the best strength demand or in other words approximately equal), still with the simple service pattern, with the general idea that the price will remain lower in the one further from the best strength demand. On this map for example linking Angouleme and Poitiers (Meat) is probably beneficial. Poitiers being on the river plays into this.
As always this stuff is ideal/theoretical because resource flows also matter so the two must be balanced. Efficient resource flows ensure good production making it probably more important. My general tack is to try to facilitate transfer along natural flows other than diverting them elsewhere.
For resources (long term) A-B-C-B works in many places, but skips are needed more often to ensure resources stay with the train. One note is that especially with the more sensitive cargoes (for ex. Livestock) make sure the train goes all the way to the industry. So if Meat Packing Plant is in D, and Livestock catchment at A have the train running A-B-C-D-C-B. Reason? cargo dropped at a station ends up in the middle of that station, it only has to travel half the station radius to "escape." This ensures that the cargo remains on your train. Remember that cargo dropped off at your station only needs to wander for half of the radius to escape (3 cells for Large Station). Another note: running direct A-D here will probably cause a higher price at A. This may be desired in some cases, but probably equates to less profit long term (if you don't own the industries).
Resource collection from rivers and ports is a good play. This is a place where skips will be needed even more often. Longer term this takes more precedence over distribution when supplying active industries. Often there will be multiple resources available for pickup, perhaps all needed at different locations. Compromise is again the name of the game.
There is some overlap between distribution and resources for cargoes such as Grain, Sugar, etc. that may either be consumed by houses or delivered to an industry. While it's better to have these converted to a higher value cargo (Alcohol), sometimes they are so plentiful that distributing them is worthwhile. The general location where this makes most sense will often end up being a link between regions on the map (as you may discover via a trip to the editor after playing).
Express traffic seems to do fairly well in a simple A-B-C-B setup even if cities are irregular size (as long as they aren't crazy small) as long you use Hotels. Likely exception would be in between some very large cities or between those in the high demand area that have many in-coming deliveries (akin to the idea of a "hub"). Would use dedicated express for those (at least reserve part of the train for express). With the expanded weight scale Gumboots is doing there will be a lot more reason to have dedicated express trains.
The point of all this is to try to haul cargo not more often, but at better price differentials. Depending on loco availability and time period running cost may or may not matter. If it does matter, don't forget that the skip routes will cost more in fuel.
I don't think I put my thoughts on this down before. I haven't had this rationale for that long. For a long time I was pretty lazy with routing patterns. Indeed if you have a company focused on industries you want production to happen in the best demand, so it might make sense to have many skips, especially heading to the ports to dump cargo out in the ocean. And, yes this map is so short term focused that a lot of this stuff doesn't apply.
![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)